zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Blog Policy
I'm not a fan of the blog feature but at the same time I am not annoyed by them. What I am annoyed by is whenever a user makes a blog, other users go on there telling them not to write a blogs. While blogs can spam the recent changes, it appears that recent blogs are doing so only because users are commenting on said blogs about how a blog should not be made. This has prompted me to make this forum to discuss how to handle a blog policy. I'm making a this separate from the Disabling Blogs page as I feel this discussion needs to be different then the future of blogs in general. I would like a policy on how to handle users that do use the blog feature. *Users should be able to use the blog feature as long as they are not spamming with multiple blog creations. *Users shall not tell other users how they can use the blog feature. *In the event that a user does abuse the blog feature, they shall be informed by an administrator on appropriate use of the feature. *If said user continues to abuse the blog feature, they shall be blocked for a period of 1 week on the first offense and 1 year on the second offense. As long as the blog feature is enabled, I feel we can't go around telling users not to use it every single time they create a blog. I believe the policy outlined above would be able to handle the event where the feature is abused while still letting it serve its intended purpose. --Birdman5589 (talk) 02:52, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :I am in of this. As you said, the only spam blogs are causing at this point consists of people complaining about how spammy blogs are. However, I think a year is a bit extreme for a second offense; I would say 1-3 months on the second offense, then a year on the third offense. -'Isdrak ' 03:24, September 19, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm ok with this policy except for a couple minor nit picks: ::# If a user is putting something in a blog that belongs in a talk page or forum or whatever, they can be informed at any time by whoever that a talk page/forum/etc. is the preferred place for it. ::#An admin shouldn't necessarily need to be the one to inform someone of blog abuse. I definitely see why an admin would be preferable, but it'd just be a pain to always wait/maybe have it fall through the cracks/message an admin. The more wiki maintenance an experienced non-admin can help with, the less pressure/dependence there is on admin activity being high. And there's the whole forum regarding not making too big a deal about adminship itself. ::# I'm leaning more towards Drakky's block length rules, with the 2nd offense being 1-3 months and the 3rd being a year. ::While I'm cool with this policy aside from my nit picks, I'm also still ok with disabling blogs outright if that's what we end up wanting to do.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 04:21, September 19, 2011 (UTC) I personally would like a rule where if it's under X amount of bytes, it should be deleted. Of course, I am more towards disabling them, but that's because blogs aren't needed. – ''Jäzz '' 10:50, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :The point is it doesn't matter how long a blog is as long as they aren't spamming. If they only post a link then that is fine. It might be pointless in some people's mind to post a small blog but I don't think it is something we should enforce if they aren't spamming. --Birdman5589 (talk) 15:50, September 19, 2011 (UTC) Alright, I've read this over and I'm in general support (although like FD, if we end up disabling them, I'm cool with that too). So how about, addressing all the concerns here, this as my proposition for a policy: * Users should be able to use the blog feature as long as they are not spamming with multiple blog creations. * Users shall not tell other users how they can use the blog feature. * In the event that a user does abuse the blog feature, they shall be informed by an administrator, or in the case that an administrator does not respond, on appropriate use of the feature. * If said user continues to abuse the blog feature, they shall be blocked for a period of 1 week on the first offense, 3 months on the second offense, and 1 year on the third offense. * If a user is making a blog regarding something that should be placed on a forum or talk page, they will be informed of this and where they should put their concern instead. I'd also like to discuss the byte size thing Jazzi suggested as sometimes if users just make some tiny blog with one link or sentence it seems rather pointless and just clogs things up. Yes, we shouldn't tell them how to use their blog, but as I said, when that happens it just seems really pointless. -'Minish Link' 15:42, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with the changes but don't support the idea of enforcing a minimum size limit. --Birdman5589 (talk) 15:50, September 19, 2011 (UTC) ::If a blog is just a link, it looks pretty spammy. – ''Jäzz '' 17:10, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :::I fail to see your logic on how one addition to the recent changes appears "spammy". --Birdman5589 (talk) 17:22, September 19, 2011 (UTC) ::::Although it's one item in the recent changes, it's a blog that's under one hundred bytes, and if they think it's okay to do it one time, it'll be okay to do the next time. It's actually a very easy rule to enforce, if a blog is under X amounts of bytes, it's deleted. It's simple. There's no point to have a blog that's under X amounts of bytes because quite frankly, it's useless. And I'd really appreciate it were you to stop claiming that you fail to see my logic, as this is the second or third time you've done it and I've had enough of it. – ''Jäzz '' 17:31, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :::::I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to try to explain how a short blog that nobody will pry comment on is considered spam. If you keep arguing the same point, then I will continue to fail to see your logic as it never presents your point of view in a different manner so I can attempt to see where you are coming from. --Birdman5589 (talk) 17:39, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :(reset indent) I actually did explain it in my previous post. As I said, if they think it's okay to create a blog with just a link once, they'll think it's okay to continue doing it. – ''Jäzz '' 17:44, September 19, 2011 (UTC) ::I am not in favour of a downward limit on blog size. If I can convey the information I'm trying to convey in a number of bytes that is less than X, I should be allowed to do that. In the case in question, the blogger posted a link that he wanted us to see. There's nothing wrong with that, and it wouldn't be better if he spouted filler about how cool the link was until he was over the size limit. If he made 15 blogs that were all just one link in a short period of time, that would be a different story, but that's not what happened. He conveyed all of the information he wanted to convey and left it at that. -'Isdrak ' 23:16, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :::I know I'm not the guy who should be complaining about, ahem, "concise" messages, but in that particular example I'm not fully sure what they wanted to convey. Besides which, if they wanted to make a point regarding the article itself, which is what I'm presuming they were doing, they should do so on the article talk page to begin with. --AuronKaizer ' 23:20, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :I'm kind of neutral on this at this point but I think the best idea would probably be to hold a vote for whether or not this is a good idea as long as everyone else is cool with the other changes made. If we did do a vote, it'd obiviously be by these rules. I do agree with Jazzi that a simple link blog can look spammy; I'm not sure posting it once would for sure mean that they'll do it again but to me it doesn't matter as much anyway and I'm more concerned at this point about resolving everything in a way the community wants because I myself don't so much care about blogs unless they get excessive. 18:17, September 19, 2011 (UTC) ::''Policy: I'm in agreement with using just the rules Minish posted (the third point isn't actually a complete sentence, but I agree with the sentiment of "preferably an admin tell them but whoever can do so if there's no admin convenient"). I don't think a size minimum matters. If we're going to let users use the feature however they want, one can easily post a lengthy blog that is regarded by most as "useless", so I don't see any need to prohibit short but equally undesired blogs. (I'm still ok with outright removal of blogs also) ::Vote: If we bring it to a vote, I think we should also have a separate vote (on the same page) for the removal of blogs entirely. At the moment more people have spoken in favor of disabling blogs outright than have spoken in favor of this specific policy. One person could vote in both polls. If both reach the needed votes to pass, the one with the highest score would be chosen over the lower-scoring one. I'm not going to make a vote section atm because there's still some people who haven't spoken here and some details that people may want fleshed out more, but if anyone thinks we're ready for a vote then go ahead.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'''Fierce]][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 21:00, September 19, 2011 (UTC) :::The part about the vote sounds good to me. -'Minish Link' 21:35, September 19, 2011 (UTC) ::::VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE! --Auron'Kaizer ' 23:20, September 19, 2011 (UTC) From what i noticed he put the link in a few peoples talk page than made the blog --lionelthehun 23:24 September 19, 2011 (UTC)